The biggest impediment to going green is that nobody knows what being "green" really means. - Inspired by the results of the Shelton Group's Ecopulse study

Absolutely right. The problem with buzzwords (e.g. "cool," "web 2.0," etc.) is that eventually their original definition becomes fairly hazy. Thus, the solution is to firmly reassert exactly what "green" means. The Department of Energy should create the equivalent of the USDA's Food Nutrition Pyramid; an easy-to-read diagram outlining both what "going green" means and the ways the average Joe and Jane Q. Taxpayer should go about doing it.

"Green" shows the danger of using buzzwords in place of more specifically descriptive terms like "environmentally friendly". 'Green' means doing ev-ery-thing in ways that make the smallest possible impact on the biosphere. I realize that means actually thinking about what you are doing, and that isn't the majority-culture way, but that doesn't mean the members of the majority culture can't learn. In fact, if they want to survive, or want their children to, they'd better learn, fast, & adapt. The alternative is too bleak to contemplate. This does mean major habit changes - consuming far less; consuming far less non-essentials; driving far less; not wasting non-renewables; not raping the boreal or rain forests; recycling like crazy; and especially, recognizing that humans has met the enemy, & he is them - that there are far too many humans, therefore, having far fewer children & not trying to prolong the lives of everyone thru medical gymnastics. It means consciously living with the concept that we are each just 1 part of the web of life, & humans are not the pinnacle of it, since webs have no pinnacles. It means living in a considerate way.. Mitakuye oiasin - All (are) my realtives.

I'm not sure that thinking in absolutes is the right way to go about being "green". We can go green without knowing everything about greenification. Respondents to the above survey may not know what constitutes a "green" house but they do know that a house that recycles is greener than one that doesn't; they know that appliances that use less energy are greener than those that use more.

´Going Green´ is just a fad like many others that is very close to jumping the shark. Personally I´m tired of hearing about going green. Think about how many products are being sold just under that label, Going Green. Yeah it´s great to ´save the planet,´ whatever that means but even for those people that really believe they are making a difference for each one they will have a different definition. If you want to exercise to feel better go ahead and if you want to ´go green´to ´save the planet´go ahead also but I don´t need to hear about it.

As far as business is concerned there is no universal definition of green nor should there be one. Each company has its own impact on the environment and the best way to reduce it is to look for ways (and there are many) to create value while doing it. Only then it becomes part of its company DNA (to use a cliche) and credible. Otherwise it simply is a jump on the sustainability bandwagon. Hence the confusion reported by the study.

And this is further complicated by the fact that much of what both lay consumers and industry experts understand to be green is just not. Check out the green "mythbusting" in WIRED magazine's 15th anniversary issue. Well intentioned advocates and consumers may actually be making things worst by falling for some of the green myths.

I have to agree going green has become a great marketing tool for business, to sell T-shirts, bags, bumper stickers you name it. These guys are making a lot of money on this terminiology showing that unless you have a common definition so that people have a common understanding of what the term means, it soon loses it's impact and originality.

As a concept or business philosophy, I agree that Green needs no formal definition. If a company is being thoughtful about its decisions and working to learn more and make environmentally responsible changes, then more power to 'em - that's Green to me. As a consumer, I say put your statement on your web page and tell me why you think your company is Green and I'll decide for myself.

However, as a marketing tool or a label on a package, I categorize it with the term "Organic". The data from the study make it clear that consumers (myself included) make assumptions about what "Green" means, and manufacturers can (and I'm sure, do) take advantage of those assumptions. Does using soy ink and recycled paper for internal memos make a company's product green? Probably not, but on that basis they might still justify a "Look! We're Green" stamp on the package.

You know what else is a fad? Greenwashing.

Perhaps if corporations stopped touting their non-biodegrable products as "green," simply because it used one downcycled material in its packaging, there would be less confusion.

For many businesses, going green is simply a marketing tool. It has to be or they wouldn't be in business. The most effective way to go green is to reduce -- not to consume.

I think corporations are just jumping on the going green bandwagon for more media coverage.

I agree that a lot of companies are going green as a marketing tool. I think that "going green" involves a very vast amount of things that can be done including implementing recycling programs, changing of light sources to more "earth friendly" options, etc. I think that businesses can even implement something as simple as buying coffee mugs instead of using throw away cups towards their efforts in going green. Successful companies use creative solutions to make a profit and keep their customers happy. Is it really a bad thing for companies to choose to “go green” and to market their progress in an effort to keep their customers interested in their company and buying their products?

The idea of specific metrics for "being green" will always be tough to nail down - especially when corporate or political groups try to nail them down for the "proletariat." A major concept of transparency in CSR is the idea of a two-way dialogue allowing traditionally unheard voices from stakeholders to define for corporations what the most important metrics are for them. That being said, and considering actions speaking louder than words, I don't subsribe to the idea that social resonsibility, including enironmental awareness, can be affiremd by any group other than community stakeholders. Shouldn't the reality of "green consciousness" be defined in terms that are in the forefront of consumers minds?

I agree that majority of the countries do not know, what is “green” all about? “Going green” is good mantra at this time. The flip side of it is that it is very difficult to follow as it is a costly proposition.
The leaders of the corporation need to have a long term plan and support the cost involved in “going green”. Corporations cannot do this alone. It needs support from customers, individuals and government to implement it.
Usage of ceramic and glass products for food industry will make a huge difference. Similarly paperless work in all sectors of business would help to keep the planet green to some extent. Every individual of the planet should have moral responsibility of understanding the impacts of global warming, and should consciously take effective remedial measures to keep it clean so the future generations can have a healthy and pollution free environment.

Sampath, corporations recognize the value of brand loyalty they are purchasing when they invest resources in going green. It may not make sense on the bottom line in the present quarter, but as consumers recognize socially responsible corporations they'll patronize those businesses rather than the corp. that cut costs in the short term to the detriment of society. CSR is really a long-term investment.

In order for corporations to be effective with "going green" marketing, they have to ensure that the consumers know what it means and what it involves. Consumers will not be willing to go spend more money for something that they do not fully understand. If a corporation decides to market green or eco-friendly products, they also should spend money marketing the reason that consumers should be on board with such products.

From the moment some brilliant marketing representative coined the phrase – “going green,” such a vision has been tantalizing; and so dazzling that the concept has blinded many investors and those in management, as to what might be delivered with a reasonable amount of success.

Championing a “build it and they will come” philosophy may over-hype the claim of “going green;” one that may seemingly appear reasonable on a power-point slide; yet may underscore an arduous transfer to reality. Additionally, making grandiose statements, such as, “We’ll be more efficient,” or “We’ll feel good,” are semantically based oriented and filled with gamesmanship posturing – despite the initial crowd of admirers and want-to-be believers.

In spite of the bold “going green” strategic opportunity and its potential for innovative solutions to a range of global problems -- one of the major questions to inquire is: “Who stands to win; and where is the payoff?” Herein lies the opportunity. By instituting a promising recipe of eagerness and enthusiasm, that is, where policy, technology and capital might embrace; then investors, governments and companies as well as venture capitalists (and entrepreneurs) might be in a position to explore the body of research; engage in extra vigilance; consider a wide array of strategies and risks – to garner the considerable earnings and rewards. On the other hand, perhaps, the data will not fit the ideal; or meet a reasonable confidence level; and the guiding principles of “going green” will infer a flawed strategy.

When companies and business executives have espoused the "going green" concept, I am often reminded of Alfred Hitchcock’s notion of who the villain is. Hitchcock once conveyed (I am paraphrasing) that “the scariest villains aren’t the ones who arrive on camera wearing black hats and accompanied by eerie music; but rather, the scariest are those who seem like normal, even nice, people and only gradually reveal themselves to be evil at the core.”

As a result, I would caution those whose exuberance exceeds their visionary outlook and sense of reality within the “going green” community. Simply because companies, individuals and business leaders express a desire to “go-green,” does not instantaneously justify such a strategy, as judgment free. Many “going green” strategies will be assessed and analyzed as ill-conceived from the beginning. I also suspect many of those same companies, which claim they will embark on a green-type strategy will ignore reasonably good fundamentals as well as failing to raise objections, and neglecting to challenge those, who do espouse a level of overconfidence and brashness. Finally, I don’t doubt the sincerity of “going green;” yet, nevertheless, to paraphrase, President George H.W. Bush, “I would be prudent.”

Sure, everyone feels good when they know they have purchased something made by a "green" process or if they recycle or use fossil fuels more efficiently. When it comes to companies reporting on their green initiatives, there's transparency, just not consistency in the definition. I have no issues with companies leveraging their green initiatives via marketing. They might be going green and putting it to their advantage. Whether it buys them more social awareness points or just increases sales, GOOD for them. - Jeff McCloskey Carey Business School

Jeff I think you bring up a really good point. For people who believe that companies should have transparency to their outside customers, stakeholders, etc companies sharing information on how they are "going green" is a great thing. I do however think that it would be worthwhile for a common definition of going green to be created so that companies that are promoting their efforts are held to the same standards. Something similiar to for example ISO could be created. This would then assure that companies would get more of a fair recognition for the changes that they are making to help the environment.

While doing anything “green” is better than nothing, the results of the Ecopulse study are disturbing. The study illustrates that “green” is a philosophical inclination more than a concrete set of actions for those in the study. I would argue that this condition is simply a stepping stone in the integration of environmental awareness into mainstream society. Not too long ago, “green” was a laughable concept to most Americans—many felt that business and life were simply not compatible with the “green” values.

Heather made a good point about ISO standards. I do feel it would be good to have policies and standards around "going green". Companies can publish “green activity reports” similar to CSR reports that would give an idea of how much the companies are involved in the green movement. These type of reports help determine customers/consumers when purchasing these products and also their commitment towards green movement. Non profit organizations such as UN and Government’s should have more emphasis and programs around “Going green”. These ideas could be educational programs using media, magazines and other means to prompt and make aware the world.

It would be interesting if the UN or another international organization invited consumers, stakeholders and the general public to help establish green priority and rating systems for an ISO. It could be through a website with access to articles, debates, blogs and a voting system. It would be a great way to incorporate voices from throughout the world. It would also initiate sustained and increased involvement of global citizenry which, in turn, would help maintain watchdog activities and increase international business transparency.

It is also a good start to involve everybody for an opinion to frame green standards. The awareness programs could be produced with help of Hollywood and sports celebrities which will urge individuals to watch it at least once. JT brings a good point of what could be the different ways to propagate "Green movement" worldwide. All these initiatives only help to seed the idea of green in everyone’s mind. However, it is the responsibility of each individual to develop conservation measures and consider lifestyle changes to keep the planet green.

Today a private economic reporting group announced that the US has been in a recession since Dec. 2007. I anticipate the 'green' initiative to take a back seat to the 'get by' initiative. For households, this makes a lot of sence because managing survival is at any household's best interest; but companies who have been learning to balance between profitability and social responsibility in business practices will need to choose which business models they believe in most. I hope that households and businesses realize that all interests are served best when 'green' includes any business practice that bolsters humanity. During what may be a serious recession, such 'green' initiatives will be heroic.